HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Countil November 7 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special County Council
PROPOSED 2001 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET
November 7, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson Robert Imhof
Connie Hoag
Sam Crawford
Dan McShane
Barbara Brenner (arrived at 9:40 a.m.)
DISCUSSION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S 2001 RECOMMENDED BUDGET
(AB2000 -363)
Dawson turned the meeting over to Finance Committee Chair Nelson.
Nelson stated there have been several meetings regarding this budget.
During those meetings, the Finance Committee interviewed each of the
departments and the non - departmental elements of the County government. He
had outlined three goals for the departments to look at, which were how they use
their resources to expedite their goals and objectives, review of their goals and
objectives from past years to determine if they've been met, and how the additional
services requests (ASR) would benefit a particular goal or objective they are trying
to achieve. By and large, many of the departments are doing much better in
outlining specific goals and objectives they are trying to achieve. There are still
some areas they need to work on. The administration laid out a budget package
that is easy to understand. There have been many questions raised during the
process regarding individual department funds and ASR's. The committee looked at
the number of personnel in each department and what was needed. They
emphasized how the County finances capital improvements and public facilities for
repair and maintenance. There was also an emphasis on criminal justice.
Within the budget document, there are three ASR sections. One section lists
the approved ASR's. One section lists ASR's that were not approved. The last
section lists the criminal justice ASR's that would be forwarded to the Law and
Justice Committee for review. Those requests would come back as supplemental
budget requests through the next year.
At this time, they may want to begin with an overview from administration to
address concerns that have come forward. There was a concern about how line
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
items are adjusted. He wanted to start with areas of general concern about the
budget, its direction, or how it was laid out.
Hoag stated she didn't get the memo requesting the councilmembers to turn
in their questions by Friday because she was on vacation. Also, in the earlier
budget discussions, any concerns about personnel percentage increases were
deferred. She questioned whether that had been discussed yet. The Council
approved a two percent increase for certain personnel through contract increases,
but the budget shows very large increases. They were to address that issue
separately.
Nelson stated one example was an increase of 13 percent in salaries and
wages for District Court Probation.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated he didn't have the specifics.
Generally, they follow the union contracts that call for a two percent increase in the
year 2001. If there are projected step increases, they program that in. There are
a dozen positions out of 800 that may be reclassified, pending appropriate review
by the Human Resources Division and the Executive's Office. Any other increases
in personnel and wages might be a conversion from one -time to ongoing funding.
The District Court Probation Department, the Public Defender, and Information
Services all had positions that are converted from one -time to ongoing. Beyond
that, there are no changes to personnel costs.
Hoag stated she believed the conversion from one -time to ongoing positions
wasn't showing up as a percentage increase because the money didn't change, just
the classification. Desler stated the one -time expenses were in a different place in
the budget. He would have to examine the budget. The amount for one -time
funding for a full -time equivalent (FTE) employee is often listed under extra help.
It would be useful to address a given department or line item.
Hoag stated she did that at the time, but her question was deferred. She
was told that they would address it as a whole and separately.
Nelson stated some of the amounts in question include a 13 percent increase
in salaries and wages in District Court Probation, with no increase in FTE's.
Hoag stated it wasn't just one department. There was a number of them.
She asked how the reclassifications show up in the Council's budget. Desler stated
it shows up as an additional services request.
Nelson asked if the Council sees anything during the year regarding salary
matrix step changes. Desler stated the Council seldom sees anything during the
year, and it would only be approved based on the recommendation of the
Executive.
Fred Thompson, District Court Probation, stated the larger increase was the
change in a position from a one -time expense to an ongoing expense.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Hoag stated her concern was that she'd asked for this information for a
couple of different departments, but was told that they would look at it for all of the
departments. Now, she is being asked to specify the departments she is concerned
about.
Nelson questioned whether the District Court Probation salaries and wages
would be a relevant factor. Desler stated it would. It is a matter of the department
and Executive's Office making an adjustment on what they charge off to the normal
Probation Department and what is listed under the contract section. The total
budget for District Court Probation rises by 5.53 percent. The salary and wage
increase for District Court Probation rises by less than one percent. It is really an
adjustment between lines. If they were to add those two elements together, they
are talking about approximately a five percent increase in staffing costs for
Probation.
Hoag stated District Court was not one that she had highlighted. Thompson
stated Councilmember Nelson mentioned it.
Nelson stated the Council also had questions about large increases in
operating transfers for several departments. He asked for the definition of the
operating transfers that required 15 percent increases.
Desler stated it would be a transfer between funds.
Brad Bennett, Finance Manager, stated operating transfers are generally
transfers to other funds within the County government. They have an in and an out
between the different funds. Examples would be transfers to the ER &R fund, the
Victim Witness fund, or the Drug fund.
Nelson stated Councilmember Hoag had a question during a previous
meeting about overtime in the Sheriff's Office. Desler stated he provided the
answers to the overtime question during that meeting.
Hoag stated she started to ask about a couple of departments, but was told
that they would be covered separately, so she didn't cover any more departments.
Nelson stated changes in the FTE's are in listed in volume I of the budget.
Most FTE changes are in the ASR's. Any additional FTE needs in a department have
to be noted as full -time, part -time, or contract.
Hoag questioned whether the conversion from one -time to ongoing funding is
reflected in the percentage changes. Bennett stated in general it isn't, but there
are exceptions. Projects funded on a pilot program basis, such as the wide -area
network, data integration for criminal justice, and microfilming were funded out of
the non - departmental fund and, in some cases, those costs have been shifted back
into the departments as an ongoing expense.
Nelson stated they would move forward with the various departments to see
if there are questions. The first budget hearing, on October 17, dealt with the
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Auditor, Assessor, Cooperative Extension, Treasurer, County Executive, and County
Council. Any motions approved during this work session would be moved forward
by the full Council so they don't have to rehash motions. He moved to increase the
salaries and wages line item number 1600.6630 for the Hearing Examiner by
$5,700. The Council approved that increase, but it was not reflected in the budget.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson stated that the Auditor asks for an Internal Auditor every year. Terry
Hinz is not doing internal auditing anymore. He questioned whether Mr. Hinz is
transferred out of the Auditor's Office. Desler stated he would be in the middle of
November.
Nelson stated there is a reclassification for the Internal Auditor. He
questioned whether they are losing one position from the Auditor's Office. Desler
stated the person is leaving the Auditor's Office.
Nelson stated they made a request for additional positions. Each year, they
have the same requests. He questioned whether the administration and the Auditor
addressed the request for additional staff in light of the fact that they are losing one
additional person. Desler stated they didn't know they were losing Mr. Hinz until
recently.
Nelson questioned whether the administration has a recommendation, in light
of Mr. Hinz leaving his position. Desler stated the administration does not
recommend that the Deputy Auditor position go away. They will fill that position.
Nelson stated the next Finance Committee budget hearing was on October
19. The committee addressed the criminal justice elements of the Public Defender,
Prosecuting Attorney and Law Library, Superior Court, District Court, Adult
Probation, Juvenile Probation, and Sheriff and Jail.
Crawford asked about the limited number of observation holding cells. At
times, there is an excess of other beds. He heard in the news that the County lost
a case about someone who hung himself. He questioned whether they've looked at
shifting some space around so they can have more observation holding cells.
Desler stated the County didn't lose the case, but there will be a re- hearing due to
new criteria. The Sheriff's Office has made changes already.
Hoag stated she was concerned about discussing details of pending litigation.
Lt. Wendy Jones, Jail Corrections Lieutenant, stated this discussion doesn't
have a bearing on the case because the gentleman was in a totally different
location in the jail and there were many other circumstances involved. They are
talking about short -term holding observation cells. They are looking at doing a
remodel of the first floor of the jail, which is the booking area. They can make
improvements on being able to see. The problem is the amount of people. Some
of these issues would be addressed with the institution of the objective jail
classification system because the screening tools are becoming much better.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Because of jail structure, they can't move some of the beds from the second floor
to the first floor. They have made operations changes to accommodate those
issues. They may put in a different type of door to help improve observation. With
the remodel, there will be changes in the configuration, but they are not sure what
that would be yet.
Crawford stated he didn't want to overlook funding something needed in the
short -term. Jones stated she appreciated that. The remodel for the booking area
has gone through the Law and Justice Commission. The jail will have support for a
one -time expenditure for that. The remodel will help address some of the issues.
There have been potential changes in staffing in the recommendation.
Nelson stated there is a remainder of $1 million for criminal justice in the
year 2001. Desler stated the administration recommends a reserve of $1 million
for ongoing law and justice expenses and $800,000 for one -time expenses to use
on projects prioritized by the Law and Justice Council and result from the most
recent Law and Justice Plan that the County finished. Projects will come forward to
the Council similar to project applications.
Nelson stated comments were made during the committee meeting regarding
the Public Defender attorneys' workloads. An ASR for an intern was denied. He
questioned the position that was not approved.
John Ostlund, Public Defender's Office Director, stated there was $6,000 for
Rule 9 legal intern clerks.
Nelson asked how that works. Ostlund stated that traditionally his office and
the Prosecutor's Office have hired a summer third year law student who qualifies for
a limited license to practice. They can operate in District Court and may handle
motions and research on other cases. He has looked at a lot of Public Defender
offices and Prosecutor offices, such as in King County and Spokane, who have law
schools and the law students all year, and use them for many reasons. Because
Whatcom County is away from a law school, it only has them in the summer. Some
schools in the country, specifically Northeastern Law School, have a full year
program that requires students to do a work experience the third quarter of the
year, each year they are in school.
(Clerk's Note: Brenner arrived at 9:40 a.m.)
Ostlund continued to state that many of the interns are willing to work
without a salary. Since Northeastern Law School is in Boston, he thought the
County could offer a $1,500 stipend to pay for airfare and some lodging. The
County could have these students all year.
Nelson questioned whether the Prosecutor's Office does this also. Ostlund
stated they've had summer legal interns every year.
Nelson stated many professional practices use interns. It creates an impact
because they are providing assistance to an intern. He questioned how the intern
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
would impact the workload for other attorneys. Ostlund stated that when they first
started using interns, he viewed it as doing a public service, and if he came out
even, he would be fine. Now, they really can't afford that. He would use them
differently. Rather than using them so much in court, which requires a lot of
training, they would use them more as law clerks or to do research, which they've
already gained training in at law school. He has two attorneys who went to this law
school. The students are required to go two terms to public interest locations.
Nelson stated interns provide an opportunity for recruitment. The amount
requested is a reasonable amount, and would not create an impact on the
department. He moved approval of the Rule 9 legal interns requested in ASR 2001-
1283 in the amount of $6,837, and requested that the Public Defender develop a
written intern program for next year's budget on how the interns would be utilized
in the department. The program would demonstrate how the interns benefit the
department and how their training could benefit the interns and encourage the
interns to work for county or government agencies. Ostlund stated he could do
that. He needs to write a prospective to the law school to attract these students,
which would entail what Councilmember Nelson just suggested.
Hoag asked where this money would come from.
Nelson stated it is a small amount of money that would come from the
Current Expense fund reserve.
Brenner stated she had suggestions for cutting back in other areas.
Nelson stated he wanted to get everything out on the floor now and see what
can move forward. The Council will have a chance to mull that over.
Hoag asked if Prosecutor's Office proposed the same program.
Nelson stated he asked that question. The Prosecutor's Office uses interns.
Ostlund stated they had an intern last year. He didn't know what their future
plans are.
Brenner stated the Prosecutor's Office has more staff than the Public
Defender's Office, and decides what will be prosecuted. The Public Defender has
very little say, and is required to defend people who can't afford to defend
themselves. The Council should do anything it can to help strengthen the Public
Defender's Office. This isn't very much money. She wouldn't support the same
program for the Prosecutor's Office because they have more than they need.
Kathy Walker, Office Administrator, stated they have had Rule 9 interns
periodically over the years, dependant upon whether dollars are available. They
had an intern last year. Two of the current staff came from internships, starting
with internships from Western Washington University (WWU) and then on to law
school. The Prosecutor's Office did submit an ASR for a Rule 9 intern for next year.
It is included in the Executive's budget.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Motion carried 4 -2 with Hoag and Crawford opposed.
McShane asked about funding for the Law Library. Ostlund stated the other
ASR they asked for was ASR 2001 -1284 in the amount of $4,100 for computerized
research. They had a joint venture with the Prosecutor's Law Library for a system,
but the Prosecutor's Office entered into a separate contract with Internet West Law.
That raised the Public Defender's Office rate with the CD Law by almost double.
The Public Defender began using West Law at a lower rate than CD Law, but they
don't have the budget to use that next year. They need this extra $4,100 to
continue it.
Nelson questioned whether the Law Library is included in the ASR for the Law
and Justice Council. Desler stated it is not included, but it could be included. When
they discussed this during the budget hearing, it was the administration's intent to
work with both of the legal staffs. It is the administration's desire to work with the
Law Library, the Prosecutor's Office, and the Public Defender so they don't duplicate
systems, software, and access. They have not had a chance to address that
directly yet. One of their objectives for next year is to try and do that. They don't
want to create multiple duplicate systems in this building. The intent is to give the
Public Defender and Prosecutor the tools they need to do the research.
Ostlund stated the West Law system costs more than what they budgeted
last year for this item.
Hoag questioned whether the West Law system would be accessed from a
joint contract and if there would be a cost savings by doing a joint contract.
Ostlund stated the prices are based on the total number of users in the Prosecutor's
Office and Public Defender's Office together. They each have their own separate
contract, but the cost is based on the total of all attorneys in the County using the
system.
Walker stated they started out with a CD ROM product through West Law.
They installed it on the network, and received a specific price for the CD ROM
products. They entered into a joint venture with the Public Defender, Public Works,
Law Library, Prosecutor, and Jail. Each department contributed to the CD ROMs.
The West Law internet product price is based on the number of attorneys. Each
attorney received a paralegal password. The County had to pay by attorney. It is
the same product, but it is accessed via the internet instead of CD ROM on the
County network. The price did go up. When they initially started this, the public
defenders thought they would get on with the state system with the state public
defenders. The Prosecutor's Office moved ahead. The departments of Public
Works, Jail, and the Law Library are still on the Prosecutor's contract because her
office gave them the paralegal passwords. They are effectively all paying for that.
It is the same product with a different pricing structure.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Hoag asked what the $4,100 is for. Walker stated it is a cost per attorney.
It is the only way to get the licensing for the internet product with West Law.
Hoag asked if they get the same cost if they have the same contract.
Ostlund stated they do.
Dawson asked the difference between Find Law and West Law.
Walker stated West Law is the standard in the legal industry.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated Find Law is the free legal
search engine on the internet, but doesn't keep up to date with the most recent
court decisions. The products are significantly different. For real research, they
need West Law.
Ostlund stated he looked at the possibility of King County and other major
public defender offices getting a statewide public defender contract that would be
less than what they are paying now. However, King County is entering into its own
contract separately with another system, so he had to abandon that possibility for
this year. The next cheapest and best option is this one that the rest of the County
is going with.
McShane moved approval of the Law Library funding requested in ASR 2000-
1284 in the amount of $4,100.
Nelson asked if this would be the only system available to the attorneys for
research, and whether they are all using the same system. Ostlund stated that was
correct.
Nelson asked why the administration would not approve it. Desler stated
they would not oppose the motion. The administration would work with them to
create a more seamless system. They wanted to avoid any duplication. The
department heads are also interested in creating a unified system.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated Park Administration salaries and wages increased by 14.04
percent, and benefits increased 25.67 percent. She questioned why there was a
larger increase in benefits than there was in salaries and wages. Desler stated the
costs of the health plans are going up by 16 to 20 percent from 2000 to 2001. It
went up about the same rate last year. In terms of salaries and wages for that
department, it has to do with funding for extra lifeguards in the department. That
is one reason for the imbalance between the two line items. The lifeguards come in
without the benefit structure of a regular ongoing employee. They are also
recommending two reclassifications, which might have a small adjustment to the
wages and salaries.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Hoag stated the increased lifeguards would increase wages, not benefits.
Desler stated the percentage increase for the cost of health insurance is a factor.
He can get the detail as to how each line item was built.
Hoag stated a 25 percent increase in benefits is significant.
McShane stated a good example of this was with the Law Library. An
increase in benefits has to do with the individuals in the positions. Desler stated
the Law Library had a job sharing arrangement with another department, which
split the benefits in half. The cost of the benefits was split between the two
different departments. The County doesn't do that anymore. There is one half-
time Law Librarian, and the person qualifies for a certain benefit structure. The
benefit costs are a bit more expensive.
McShane asked if that situation would be the same with the other
departments. Desler stated that seldom is the cost of a person split between two
budgets.
McShane asked if the difference in salary and benefits would be because of a
person hired at a lower salary, who has higher benefits cost instead of a person
hired at a higher salary with lower benefits. Desler stated the costs would not be
that different. The benefit costs are the same percentages.
Hoag stated that on page 138 of volume II, there are large money amounts
for a large number of people. There are larger percentage increases in benefits
compared to salaries and wages. For instance, under Administration Benefits, there
is a change of 8.96 percent. Under Land Use, there are large numbers in terms of
money and people. There is only a 2.98 percent increase in salaries and wages,
which is along the lines of what the Council approved for step increases. However,
the benefits increased by 14.31 percent.—This kind of thing shows throughout the
budget. Desler stated they don't pay a different rate based on the number of
family members. There is just one monthly rate. The administration is not
proposing any changes in terms of how they organize the payment of benefits or
step increases. They only program in the projected cost of existing policies the
Council already approved. There might be a tweaking of time assigned between
some of the divisions, which might cause the lines to be adjusted. They've tried to
lay out the budget and show information on changes in ASR's that influence the
costs.
Hoag stated the Land Use is not significantly affected by ASR's because there
is only a 2.98 percent increase in salaries and wages, but the cost of benefits jump
14.31 percent. She asked for more detail. The benefits percentage increases
should be consistent throughout, because they are standard. There are cases of
large benefits increases without an explanation of why that is so. Desler stated he
would provide the exact changes between the years 2000 and 2001, in terms of
amounts. They are all calculated in detail.
Hoag stated the amounts are in volume II, but it doesn't say where it is
coming from.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Bennett stated that, of the $24,666 increase in benefits for the Land Use
Division of Planning and Development administration, $13,000 goes to medical
insurance.
Hoag stated the Public Defender's Office benefits increased by 8.61 percent.
She questioned why one department has a 14 percent increase and another has an
eight percent increase.
Crawford stated small businesses experience substantial annual increases in
the cost of health care coverage. He asked the average percentage that the health
care coverage has gone up. In small business, they've had an increase over the
last five years be a minimum of 25 percent and maximum of 50 percent each year.
He asked if the County experienced that kind of increase. Desler stated the County
has two arrangements. One contract is with Teamsters and one is with the
Northwest Medical Bureau, which is a self- insurance contract. The County pays an
8.5 percent administrative charge for management of the plan. The County then
pays re- insurance for any expenses over $100,000 per person. That cost has been
rising from 15 to 16 percent per year for the last couple of years. That cost is a lot
less than many other entities pay. It is because the County hasn't had the
experience problems, or they are part of a pool that is more expensive than the
County's. The Teamsters agreement has had larger increases of around 20
percent. The County's increases are less than the increases being seen by other
entities.
Hoag questioned whether the differences in benefit costs are because some
employees are covered by Teamsters and others are covered by Northwest Medical
Bureau. Desler stated no. He would break out the benefit cost increases by the
departments he heard Councilmember Hoag list.
Hoag stated it is not just those departments. Those were just examples.
Public Works under ER &R only listed a 2.4 percent increase in salaries, but a 13
percent increase in benefits. There is a lot of disparity throughout. Don't take just
the ones she listed. Desler questioned whether Councilmember Hoag wanted
information on every department in the breakdown.
Hoag stated she wanted to know why there is a disparity between
departments.
Nelson stated part of the problem is that the 1999 budget just lists benefits.
Many things fall under benefits. Councilmember Hoag is asking what is included in
the benefits line item.
Brenner stated the only thing that was unusual about the insurance increase
was that it doesn't go up the same for all departments, and the only difference is
number of employees. She asked if that was a reason for all the departments that
don't have the same increase in benefits. Desler stated that, while building the
budget, they make estimates about each person's position in the retirement system
and the salary schedule to calculate items such as retirement, social security tax,
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
L &I, and all the other elements. It is built into a matrix that allows them to
determine exactly the projected cost for the next year. It projects the cost for
those individuals for the next year. There are some adjustments made based on a
percentage of wages, such as the social security tax.
Brenner stated it seemed to her that there are many different individuals at
different salary steps. There are also differences in the retirement plans between
people who have been with the County for a long time and those newer County
employees. She assumed that is all factored in, which would make each
department look different. Desler stated the material in the budget is the total of
all those elements.
Hoag stated that the percentage increase from this year to next year would
not change much for someone who has been with the County a long time. The
benefits percentages are the same. There would be a percentage decrease for
people who replace the people with the longevity. She questioned why they are
seeing such large increases. Desler stated medical insurance is one reason.
Hoag stated that is part of it, but not the entire cause. Even the percentages
that have been mentioned don't match. She questioned why there is disparity from
department to department. Desler stated they are not proposing any changes in
policy. They are letting the budget follow the policy the Council already set
regarding benefits. He would provide more detailed information.
Nelson suggested changes for next year's budget. He liked seeing the
percentage changes. They help guide the councilmembers through the budget
process to see what is being changed. The dialogue regarding the medical
insurance is significant for a legislative body to look at. He questioned whether
there are other things creating an impact that they are not considering. Showing
percentage change is a good thing. They might want to establish a percentage
level that would require an explanation.
Brenner asked if health insurance is one of the biggest increases. Desler
stated it is a very large component of everyone's wage package.
Brenner stated it is going to be hard to get all the specifics without reviewing
it employee by employee, but it may be a good idea to do once. Desler stated the
country has been fighting the cost of health care for a long time. The costs include
technology, new drugs, staff, buildings, and the aging population.
Hoag requested information about why there are significant increases that
are not associated with increases in salaries and wages. She also requested
information on the disparity between the departments. On page 175 of volume II,
Other Services and Charges under Public Works Others went up 86 percent. She
asked what made up the majority of that increase.
Nelson stated they would answer that question when they get to that
department.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Dawson asked when to expect an answer to Councilmember Hoag's question.
Desler stated today.
Crawford stated private business dealt with the increase in cost by asking
employees to participate in cost sharing. He asked if that was practical in County
government because of union negotiations. He suggested defining a benefit cap for
each employee, who could pay any amount above the employer's cap. He
questioned whether the County would be served in positioning itself for that model.
Nelson stated any changes in costs that directly impact the County's
budgeting process are legislative and policy directions they need to look at with the
administration's help.
Crawford stated he had the impression that the County has to absorb
whatever cost increase the insurance carrier makes. Each employee could be
provided information on the true costs of his or her benefits. Employees need to
understand that there are costs associated with them that far exceed what they see
on their paycheck. When it comes to exorbitant increases in medical care, the
government needs to look at it in terms of compensating those employees.
Brenner stated she agreed with establishing a cap, but not investigating each
employees cost. It would be discriminatory. She wanted to know if that would
create a legal problem. The private sector may be able to do it.
Dawson stated she liked the idea of providing information on cost per
employee. Some individual employees do cost more in terms of coverage. It would
make sense putting everyone on an equal amount.
Brenner stated they don't have to break down the information for every
employee to do that.
Crawford stated that in his company, hourly employees are allowed a certain
number of dollars per year. Salaried employees are allowed a certain number of
dollars per month or per year.
Nelson stated the County doesn't have a uniform type of employees. The
Council, as a legislative body, needs to look at the cost of total benefits. When they
go into negotiations, the County looks at all the representations. Have an overall
view of the County government and use percentages or some mechanism of
measuring the employee benefits in various areas, regardless of departments.
Look at this as an overall policy decision and have a measurement ability. Desler
stated the issue of health insurance and dental costs fit into the issue of salary,
benefits, and working conditions, which they negotiate on a two or three year
schedule with eight different union groups representing 650 employees. They
would have to negotiate that under law with those groups over time. The master
agreement has one more year on it. If there are policy issues such as developing a
cafeteria plan or capping benefits, they ought to discuss that in executive session
and talk about the approach that they want to use as they address those future
union contracts.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Hoag stated Councilmember Crawford's example works at larger companies.
Her husband's employer, Puget Sound Energy, has the same type of plan. The
company donates a certain amount of money for benefits, and the employee
chooses the type of plan he or she wants to be on and the amount of coverage.
The first thing the County needs to look at is what is driving up the costs. Getting
the answer to those questions is where they need to start. The idea of letting an
employee know what he or she costs is an intriguing one, but it shouldn't cost the
County to produce that information, and the information should not be demoralizing
to workers. It is important to maintain morale among employees.
Brenner stated it is about the entire benefits package, not just health
benefits. Look at it over a multi -year time frame because a person could have a
bad year. Make sure that it doesn't make the employees uncomfortable to point
things out.
Desler stated the administration doesn't intend to initiate a process to notify
the County staff about their benefits. By the end of the day he would provide
information on benefit cost increases from 2000 to 2001 and what is going on with
the components of that line item.
Nelson stated they need to continue addressing the Public Defender's Office
and Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
McShane stated HIDTA funded an additional prosecutor in 1999, shown in
volume II on page 146.
Dale Bandland, Sheriff, stated HIDTA funding is federal money and covers
seven or nine counties. Whatcom County is unique because of its location on the
border. HIDTA stepped outside its normal procedure to fund a prosecutor and a
clerical person to help with the drug cases that are handled via the border.
McShane asked if that funding would continue. Brandland stated it would if
the HIDTA board chooses. The County prosecutes a fair number of cases for them.
McShane asked where the individuals go to jail if they are successfully
prosecuted. Brandland stated they are prosecuted through the state courts. They
go to his jail or to a state institution of the Department of Corrections.
McShane questioned who is paying for their internment. Bradland stated
that if they are being interned in his jail, then Whatcom County is paying for it.
Desler stated they are charged under state law.
Brenner stated she saw a memo on the internet about a lot of prosecuting
attorneys in the southwest border states that demanded that the federal
government send in more federal prosecutors, or they would stop prosecuting the
criminals. They got their funding.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Brenner continued to state that Dave McEachran didn't think that it was a
good idea. If Whatcom County doesn't start forcing the federal government to do
its fair share, the County shouldn't have local taxpayers fund or pay for border
crime. The number of prosecutors have increased over the years. Instead of those
increases, the County should make the federal government give them the staff.
Nelson stated HIDTA is a regional entity. He stated there are representations
on the decision - making body of the criminal justice system. He asked where they
are primarily located. Brandland stated the decision - makers are located throughout
the region from the Greater Puget Sound area and Yakima.
Nelson stated that most of the representatives are from King and Pierce
County. Brandland stated that is where the bulk of the money goes.
Nelson stated it is difficult to get financing up here. Whatcom County does
not have a large voice on that task force, which makes those decisions.
Brenner stated this is not a regional issue, only border counties. Brandland
stated he supported Dave McEachran's decision to prosecute those cases. If the
County did not prosecute those cases, those people would be set free.
Brenner stated that Mr. McEachran said the County should not go forward
and request more federal prosecutors and instead do it locally. Brandland agreed
with that opinion. The caseload of a federal prosecutor is about 30 cases per year.
Dave McEachran does close to 250 cases per year. If the County gives them more
money, they will just lower their caseloads. He has been going for more support
for the area because of the impact of that border. Dave McEachran is sponsoring
legislation in the state this year to get Whatcom County special help to deal
specifically with the problems associated at the border across Washington. He's
talked to Slade Gorton and federal legislators and asked for the same type of
support. He agreed with Councilmember Brenner. The County should not have to
take on this kind of responsibility, but the reality is that if the County doesn't take it
on those people will walk.
Brenner stated the Council should be aware of what is going on at the
southwest border. They have received benefit by forcing the federal government to
fund enforcement. She didn't care if the federal government funded federal
prosecutors or gave the money to the County to pay for it's cost locally. As long as
the County doesn't hold the federal government's feet to the fire by demanding
money or staff, the County lets them get away with it.
Nelson asked if Councilmember Brenner was suggesting letting the criminals
walk if they are arrested.
Brenner stated no. The County would have to say it is a border case.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Nelson stated there are only two options when they arrest someone for drug
trafficking; either let the person go or prosecute them. He questioned whether
there is a third option.
Brenner suggested checking with the border association who has done this
already. They've already dealt with that issue. They can force the federal
government to do it. She disagreed that the only other option is to let a criminal
walk. They can force the federal government.
Nelson questioned how they would force the federal government.
Brenner stated they could file a grievance against the federal government.
Nelson questioned whether there is a mechanism to do that. Brandland
stated he wasn't familiar with any. They are trying to exert the pressure that they
can exert. The people in the southwest chose not to prosecute. There isn't a third
option. If there was a third option, Dave McEachran would know about it.
McShane asked if the Public Defender has defended any individual being
prosecuted by this additional attorney. Ostlund stated they defend those
individuals every day. Mr. McEachran tried to get him some money, but the
restrictions on the HIDTA funds will not allow it. They defend these cases every
day. The Jail pays for incarcerating them every day. They have tried to get money
for the defense of those individuals. So far, the County pays for it.
McShane stated there is a philosophical decision the Council has to make
next year, not this year. If the federal government wants to have a war on drugs,
he is tired of fighting it for them. He would be comfortable telling the federal
government that enough is enough, and the federal government must pay to
prosecute the individuals or pay the County to prosecute the individuals.
Nelson stated the County also has the drug fund. He questioned where that
money is going.
Dave McEachran, Prosecuting Attorney, stated his office handles the drug
cases from the border. Those are federal crimes and state crimes. He has handled
those cases for years. The federal government doesn't handle them unless there is
a large amount; they set different thresholds. The federal government supported
HIDTA, and granted the County an attorney and support staff. He handles about
130 extraditions from the border per year. They are held for an average of 30 days
before they can send them to various states. That is another added expense the
County has. The County has a uniform agreement with all states for extradition.
The border increases the County's cost, but the federal government doesn't repay
the County. He also handles stolen property cases from the border. Drug cases
are included in that composition of cases. The war on drugs is a misnomer.
They've never had a war on drugs. That is a term that was developed by the
media. They don't have a war on anything when it comes to crime. They increase
their efforts when crime rises to the degree that the community says it has had
enough. Then, they put more resources into the system to get it to a level they can
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
live with. That is how they deal with crime. Regarding the drug cases, they are
about 20 percent of the felonies that they handle. The rate has gone up one or two
percent in the last five years. The federal government has given the County money
to handle these prosecutions. They are crimes within the State of Washington.
This year, he and the Attorney General are putting forward a bill that would provide
help for all border counties in the State of Washington. To think this is a federal
problem is not looking at the problem. It is also a problem for the state and
county.
Hoag questioned the number and percentage of border cases. McEachran
stated he files about 1,200 felonies per year. Of that, border cases are about 50 or
60 of the 1,200 felonies. They catch people that may have come from or are going
to the border, but are caught in the county. This year, he will prosecute 300 drug
cases.
Hoag asked if these cases tend to take more or less time than other felonies.
McEachran stated they are much easier to try because the regular search and
seizure questions are not that paramount. A person loses his or her rights at the
border. They have stepped up the border because of the terrorist concern, but the
state has also stepped up drug interdiction. There are increased drug- sniffing dogs.
Hoag stated that generally the Prosecutor's Office decides what would be
prosecuted. The Public Defender's office only deals with those that go to court.
The Prosecuting Attorney deals with more cases. McEachran stated he rejects 250
to 300 cases per year. Many ongoing investigations won't come up for years.
Regarding felonies, the Public Defender handles those defendants who don't have
money to pay for a defense. In many of the drug cases, people have money. Last
time they looked, it was less than 70 percent of the felonies.
Brenner asked the percent of overall cases that come from the border.
McEachran stated fugitives are about 130. Pure border cases with drugs could be
50 to 100. The other miscellaneous cases could be close to 250 to 300 cases out of
1,200 cases total. Fugitive cases are not federal cases, they are state cases. All
the states in the union have a compact to deal with fugitives. He has contracted
with every state in the union to extradite people back to their states. Extradition is
done governor to governor. A governor's warrant is issued.
Brenner questioned what happens if another port is the first port of entry.
They can fly those people back to their state as easily as they can drive them to the
international border. There are other ways to bring people in. McEachran stated
they handle many people at the border who are not Canadian citizens and are
deported. They may be deported because they are wanted in another state. For
instance, if a criminal runs to Canada because they are wanted in Georgia, and the
person is deported from Canada, Whatcom County gets that person as soon as he
or she comes over the border. That is extradition. Even though they have gone to
a foreign country, they are wanted in another state. That is extradition.
Ostlund stated there are two types. There are those who are deported out of
Canada. Canada decides where the criminal is deported. Anyone deported out of
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Western Canada gets deported out of the White Rock border crossing and into
Whatcom County. If the person is wanted by the federal government, the person
gets turned over by federal court and Whatcom County is not involved. Most of the
extraditions or fugitive complaints are people who are going up to Canada, get
turned away by Canadian customs and get turned back to the U.S. border. The
U.S. customs will investigate them and get a hit on a warrant. The person is then
held under the Uniform Extradition Act.
Brenner asked the percentage of crimes that are publicly defended. Ostlund
stated 70 percent of felonies are defended by the Public Defender's Office. The
amount of misdemeanors are 45 to 50 percent of the cases that are defended by
the Public Defender's Office. The number of juvenile cases is about 100 percent
that are defended by the Public Defender's Office. They can't compare the
workload between the prosecuting attorneys and public defenders. How cases are
handled are different.
Brenner stated she assumed felonies take the most work. Ostlund stated
generally, but not always.
Brenner asked if, generally, workloads for felonies are first, juveniles are
second, and misdemeanors are third. Ostlund stated it varies.
Hoag questioned, of the 300 border cases, how many have any federal
involvement. McEachran stated border cases have state charges. The cases
crossing the border would be from 50 to 100. For other cases that involve drugs, it
is very difficult to stay. Stolen property could be from many states. Fifty to 100
cases have federal involvement.
Dawson stated that in the past they talked about how to verify that the
people using the public defender are really indigent, particularly the parents of
juveniles. McEachran stated the parents are not responsible to pay for juveniles.
Anyone going to Mr. Ostlund's office would have an assigned counsel position who
reviews their finances to see if they meet the financial threshold. If they do not,
and they do not have sufficient funds, they will be appointed an attorney.
Brenner asked if they could go after the parent if a juvenile commits a crime.
McEachran stated ordinarily no.
Ostlund stated in some cases they can.
Dawson asked how they determine if the defendant doesn't have the money.
Ostlund stated it is different with adults and juveniles. Adults are arrested.
Assigned counsel takes a sworn statement regarding their assets. Investigating
each person requires a cost.
Dawson asked if the County could get tax statements. McEachran stated the
County couldn't do that. That is privileged information and the IRS will not give
that information out. The County has a sworn statement, so if the defendant lies,
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
the County can prosecute him or her. Then, they have to have someone
investigate that, but that is the problem. They have done a few.
Ostlund stated they are on a time - limited basis and have to prosecute within
a limited amount of time. There is not enough time to get tax statements. Few
cases are obviously fraudulent.
Brenner asked the financial threshold. Ostlund stated it is approximately 125
percent of the poverty level.
Brenner stated she understood that they couldn't go after the parent when a
juvenile commits a crime. Ostlund stated there is a law that does allow recouping
from the parent of costs up to $1,000. Regarding initial qualification for a public
defender, state law governs it.
Hoag asked about the approved overtime amount requested in ASR 2001-
275 by the Sheriff's Office, Investigations Division, in the amount of $5,675. This is
an increase over the amount of overtime requested last year, which was in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Desler stated he gave his information to
Councilmember Hoag previously, and didn't have it on hand.
Hoag recommended that they remove that overtime request. They are now
giving the Sheriff eight new deputies, and they already have hundreds of thousands
of dollars in overtime. The amount budgeted for overtime is a big concern for her.
Overtime can be addressed by managing manpower differently. Some overtime
items they cannot avoid. She asked for a breakdown of what overtime consists of.
The largest portion is due to deputies being held over after shifts to write reports.
That could be handled by rearranging manpower. How the shifts are planned and
providing time for deputies to write their reports on regular hours is something that
could be addressed. She moved to remove from this budget the approved ASR
2000 -275 for Sheriff's Office overtime in the amount of $5,675.
Brenner agreed, but the motion should be based on a change in the structure
of the shifts. She didn't know that they could do that. She offered that as a
friendly amendment.
Hoag did not accept the friendly amendment. There are many options to
pursue. The deputies could overlap shifts and bring in flex -time people. She didn't
want to lock them in a particular way. The eight new deputies have to go to six
months of training and would not initially relieve the amount of overtime. The
amount of overtime the county pays already is inappropriate.
Brenner stated they need to verify the overtime. If they are going to overlap
the shifts, it would be difficult to have deputies on the road. The other concern
about removing the ASR is that it takes time to train the deputies.
Hoag stated there is already overtime in the budget.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Nelson asked if the $5,000 reflects the needed overtime to train the new
group. Brandland stated they struggle with investigations, which is different from
patrol. They see a certain amount of deputies having to stay after to write reports,
but the bulk of it has to do with the major crime incidents they have to deal with.
One homicide took 300 hours to investigate.
Nelson asked if that could come forward as a supplemental budget request as
needed. Brandland stated it could.
Nelson stated the amount is only $5,000. If they come to the end of the
year and a major incident occurs, the Sheriff could come forward with a
supplemental budget request. Brandland stated he does that now. If he does not
have enough money in his overtime budget at the end of the year if a major
incident occurs, he absorbs it elsewhere in his budget. Overtime is not something
they just ignore. He has put pressure on staff to cut overtime over the past two
years. Every year they have a concern with overtime. They use the amount of
overtime that it takes to do business. So much of this is unanticipated. For him to
change people's hours is a bargaining issue with the union. It is not an easy fix.
The ASR has to do with fire investigations, which are arson investigations. Warner
Webb is the County fire marshal. They have an agreement with the Public Works
Department. His responsibilities were shifted out of Sheriff's Office five years ago
so the Sheriff's office pays his overtime.
Hoag stated in 1999, the amount spent on overtime was $347,000 in
operations and $253,000 in the jail. They've tried to address the overtime in the
jail by providing more personnel, so the proposed budget for overtime in 2001 is
much smaller. She questioned what the current overtime levels are. There were
2,317 hours spent by officers writing reports and 1,455 hours on arrest issues. She
didn't know whether ASR 2001 -275 only has to do with emergencies and fires.
With the amount being spent on overtime and the new deputies, the ASR should
come out of the budget and they should decrease the amount budgeted for
overtime. If this is a limited line item that deals only with fire, then take the
money for fire investigation overtime out of patrol overtime.
Dawson suggested that the Law and Justice Council look at overtime use.
Desler stated they could do that. There are impacts the court creates.
Councilmember Hoag's figures for the past two years and next year were correct.
Overtime comes out of account 6140. The additional overtime was added because
of the additional fire investigations, though the department would be able to use it
for any overtime.
Hoag amended her motion to remove this ASR from the budget and refer it
to the Law and Justice Council.
Brenner stated she's heard that a huge amount of the overtime is spent on
deputies writing their reports after the end of the shift. Brandland agreed.
Motion carried 4 -2 with McShane and Crawford opposed.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Brenner asked if fire and emergency overtime could come from the general
overtime. Brandland stated it is a separate line item so it can easily be identified.
Brenner asked if they could transfer it to regular overtime. Brandland stated
he could. He provided Councilmember Hoag with a breakdown of their overtime for
1999.
McShane referenced ASR 2000 -1228 that was referred to the Law and Justice
Council. He moved to approve in the budget one of the two Probation Officer I
positions requested in ASR 2001 -1228 by District Court Probation in the amount of
$43,423.
Dawson asked if he wanted to subtract the cost from the $1 million reserve.
McShane stated that when they add up all the changes and cuts, they will
deal with that then.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Crawford stated they are already increasing a position from a .6 FTE to one
full -time FTE. Desler stated they are making the existing full -time position an
ongoing position instead of a one -time expense.
Hoag stated they need to show where the money comes from to show
whether the net change to the budget increases or decreases the reserves.
Nelson stated this is a work session. He would collect all the requests and
then look at the fiscal impact.
Desler stated there are three choices. One choice is to make other
adjustments or reductions in other general fund expenditures, which would result in
the savings of the cost of the additional probation officer. Another choice is to
reduce the $1 million reserve. The last choice is to take it off of the fund balance.
Nelson stated the funding source from this would be from the criminal justice
reserves.
McShane agreed.
Hoag stated the items should be introduced as a package to see where the
funding comes from.
Nelson stated the second position in the ASR 2001 -1228 would remain for
review by the Law and Justice Council.
McShane stated there was a compelling argument that this is currently
needed. They don't need to wait on this. Currently, based on information
presented during the budget hearing, this is something needed.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Nelson stated that District Court performance activities have a projected
reduced caseload already to go from 279 cases to 225 cases for next year. He
didn't see the reason to provide additional assistance now, without going through
the Law and Justice Council.
Hoag stated there would be a drop in juvenile filings and an increase in
juvenile bed days. They were strongly looking at recommendation eleven and
alternatives to detention.
Fred Thompson, District Court Probation Director, stated he predicted an
increase in revenue as a result of additional workload. The workload on the cases
they have currently increased drastically because of the drinking under the
influence (DUI) laws. The projected number of caseloads was based on getting
more people as recommended by the Blue Ribbon Panel and the current study,
which recommend additional officers. The increased workload has been dramatic.
The two groups that have looked at this over the last three years have both
recommended additional probation officers because of the workload. The revenue
has increased dramatically because of the increased workload. When there was a
correction with the City of Bellingham, and departments received relief because of
an increased workload, his department did not receive relief because the City of
Bellingham wanted him to continue handling their cases. They have continued to
do so, and never received the relief that the other departments got when that
happened.
Brenner asked for an in -depth report about District Court Probation, including
private attorneys who defend people. Over the years, she's had complaints about
what probation officers are and are not doing. If they are going to increase
probation officers, she wanted to make sure they are not creating more work for
everyone to do. She requested a workshop discussion in the future that would
include the private sector.
McShane stated this is an opportunity to save money. Looking at the Law
and Justice Plan they already have and the report they received, a number of items
were pulled out as priority items. One of those was the added Sheriff deputies.
This is not something they need to wait around for.
Motion failed 1 -4 with McShane in favor and Hoag out of the room.
Desler submitted a report on the benefit costs they discussed earlier in the
meeting. There are increases in benefit costs. A significant portion is related to the
medical and dental insurance. Everything else follows the adjustments occurring
regarding salaries and wages. They can take more time on this if the Council
wishes.
Nelson stated the next section is Administrative Services, Health and Human
Services, and the Public Works Department.
Dawson moved to budget for another flood engineer and geologist, with the
funding to come out of the flood fund. She was not sure of the impact. The motion
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
is to approve up to $137,500. Desler stated the Executive went through that
information and proposed adjustments consistent with the motion.
Nelson asked for the administration's recommendation. There are significant
differences in dollar amounts that they need to look at. If Councilmember Dawson
doesn't have a specific dollar amount, he would rather have the administration
propose a dollar amount and look at that recommendation.
Brenner stated this item was in Public Works Committee, which
recommended this unanimously.
Desler stated number four in Executive Kremen's letter dated November 7
increases the approval from one to two river and flood engineers, and does not
include hiring the engineering technician. Increase the amounts from $68,750 to
$123,926 under ASR 2001 -1236 and adjust ASR 2001 -1544 from $28,500 to
$35,500.
Dawson stated her recommendation includes a geologist.
Nelson stated that Councilmember Dawson's motion is to hire a second
engineer /geologist. He asked the cost of that motion.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated there are two ASR's. The first is
the salary and benefit issue, ASR 2001 -1236. The second ASR is the capital
expense for the positions. The $7,000 change is the high -speed computer for the
second engineer. A vehicle is already approved with the first position. They need
only one vehicle for the two engineer positions. They would need a second vehicle
if the third position, the technician, was approved. They would not need a third
computer. Funding for the two positions that were originally denied, the second
engineer and the technician, totals $187,350 as requested in ASR 2001 -1236. The
administration's adjusted recommendation approves two of the three requested
positions, and the numbers listed in the memo are the amounts associated with
that second engineer. If they are considering the third position, he would want to
provide those numbers separately.
Monsen stated the recommendation of the administration approves two of
the three requested positions. If the Council considers the third position, he would
rather give the numbers separately.
Dawson stated the money is allocated in the flood fund. She questioned
whether they are looking at doing work on the side channels.
Nelson stated this would help develop sediment management plans.
Dawson stated it is a natural part of mitigation. Instream extraction and
scalping has no negative affect on the river. They really need to have a
geologist /sediment control individual on hand.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
McShane stated the Public Works Committee recommended the third position
because someone suggested that they add a third person to do the sediment
management. It was his recommendation in committee to add the third position,
so the other two positions are not being taken up in dealing with sediment
management issues in the river. It takes an enormous amount of time for a
possible fruitless effort.
Dawson stated her motion was to add the second engineer and the geologist
to do the sediment management work.
Hoag stated the administration recommends adding the engineer, but not the
technician.
Dawson asked to deal with the technician later, and just deal with the second
engineer.
Nelson stated the request for the engineer for flood modeling is the first thing
to deal with. Monsen stated that is already in the budget as approved.
Nelson stated the second engineer is the ASR 2001 -1236. Monsen stated
that position was not approved. The engineer is to primarily work on the backlog of
project activities on maintenance and capital work.
Nelson stated the motion was to add the second engineer as requested in
ASR 2001 -1236. He questioned the cost of the second engineer. Monsen stated
the increase is listed in the Executive's memo. That cost is for an engineer and a
computer. The request for the first engineer includes a vehicle that would serve
both engineers.
Desler stated the total, approximately $62,000, covers the equipment and
salary and wages for this additional flood engineer.
Hoag stated that covers $7,000 for the computer and $55,000 for the salary
and wages.
Motion to approve the second engineer carried 5 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Dawson stated the second request was for a geologist for flood management.
Hoag questioned what suggested positions came from the committee.
Brenner stated that the recommendation was for these three positions.
McShane stated the committee wasn't so specific to identify them as
engineers and a technician.
Brenner agreed. One position was to cover all aspects of the division. A
technician would cover that purpose.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Hoag stated she supported Councilmember Dawson regarding the request for
more manpower and specialized help with sediment management.
Nelson stated the motion is for a geologist technician. Monsen stated he
recognized the need for a geologist and someone with experience in hydrologic
modeling and project design permitting when he designed the three positions. To
have that combination, he determined that they needed two engineers and a
technician. He couldn't say that the technician would be the geologist. That kind of
skill may be incorporated into the engineer's position. In order to put effort into
sediment management, the department needs the third position.
Dawson stated the motion is to have a geologist to do sediment
management.
Brenner stated she was not comfortable saying they will leave it and decide
later. The County needs someone with certain expertise, even if it means the
County has to pay more for that expertise.
Dawson stated her motion was not for a technician.
McShane stated he was not sure he would specifically require a geologist.
Some engineers have significant geologic experience that can do the job just as
well. He encouraged that geology be taken seriously in consideration of the
position, but it would be taken seriously because they hired a technician geologist
before.
Nelson stated the position would be for a technician. How that team is put
together to handle these tasks would be determined by the department. He
questioned the amount of funding needed for the technician position.
Dawson stated they need to specify that the position is to do sediment
management. That is policy decision.
Monsen stated the desire is that the second engineer position would include
the geologic skill. The third position is related to doing proactive work for sediment
management. The team would function together in all of those program areas.
The total cost for all three positions as requested in ASR 2001 -1236 is $187,350,
which includes two engineers, one technician, two vehicles, and the appropriate
computers.
Hoag stated the difference in cost for the additional technician and the
second vehicle is about $64,000.
Dawson stated the motion is to approve a total of $63,424 for the technician
and a vehicle.
Hoag suggested a friendly amendment that the motion be for a technician
and that this be included as part of a team that includes a geologist. Also include in
the motion that sediment management be addressed.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Dawson asked Mr. Monsen if there was any problem with that. Monsen
stated there was not.
Dawson accepted the friendly amendment.
Monsen stated the full amount for all three positions is $256,100. The figure
of $187,350 does not include capital expenses.
Hoag questioned why it would cost $60,000 for a technician. Monsen stated
the addition of the technician would require another vehicle.
Dawson stated she would hold the motion until they can get the correct
figures.
Nelson stated that what is approved is the $68,750 for the additional
engineer.
Ron Bronsema, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee Chair, stated
the County Council originally approved three positions. The first position was for an
engineer to run the computer hydrologic model for the river to maintain and run the
different scenarios for the levees, setbacks, and overflows. The second position,
which has now been reinstated by the administration, was to help the County's
flood engineer do projects and permitting. The carry -over projects from this year
will keep him busy all of next year. The problem is the permitting process. It used
to take two weeks to do an ordinary project, such as putting rock in the river. Now
a person must continually revise the permit applications, and the game is played for
months and months. They figure that now it takes two years to do a project, by
the time they get the permits.
Hoag asked if the motion matches what they need. Bronsema stated it is the
bare bones of what they need, but they will take it one step at a time.
Brenner stated that when the FCZDAC made their presentation before the
Public Works Committee, they asked for a lot more than this. Much of the request
was for valid issues. The Public Works Committee cut the request to these three
positions. This is as bare bones as it gets.
Bronsema stated the Advisory Committee requested more than eight FTE's,
and they've pared the request down.
Desler stated the cost for the additional river and flood engineer, with the
capital expenses, is $62,176. It's not as if the administration doesn't want to do
these duties, but it takes time to acquire additional staff, bring them on board,
provide them with training and support, and get them up and operating. The
administration wants to do this carefully so they can get the maximum support they
can. They should examine the possibilities of how to get at the sediment
management activity. It could be done with consultants or staff. That doesn't
prevent the administration from coming back and recommending a remedy. The
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
administration is concerned about adding a lot of staff because it takes time and
effort to do that effectively without wasting money. They are trying to be prudent.
Hoag questioned what the County Council already approved earlier.
Nelson stated the Council approved including the request in this budget.
Dawson stated she would be open to designating a certain amount
specifically for sediment management. It needs to be addressed. Contracting the
work out is one way to do it.
Hoag questioned a line item for Public Works Other, Other Services and
Charges, on page 175, of volume II. It shows an increase of $66,000, which is an
86 percent increase. She questioned what that cost represents. Monsen stated the
primary increase is about $110,000 for the sub -zone work.
Hoag questioned the reason for the increase of $677,000 in the Public Works
ER &R fund. Monsen stated the Public Works Other fund is a combination of a
variety of funds managed by the Public Works Department. Nineteen of the 39
funds the County manages are assigned to the Public Works Department. The
summary lists five funds, and the remaining are lumped together under Public
Works Other. The majority of the others are due to the sub - zones.
Hoag questioned whether the increase is just on flood projects. Monsen
stated it primarily is just on flood projects.
Brenner questioned page 175 regarding Solid Waste, Other Services and
Charges. That amount went up dramatically.
Nelson stated it is for the Northwest yard waste site in the amount of
$110,000.
Brenner moved to remove the expenditure of $110,000 for the Northwest
yard waste site in the Solid Waste Fund, Public Works.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
Brenner continued to state that there was a recommendation from the Solid
Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) about a year ago. The committee
recommended going out for a request for proposal (RFP) to the private sector to
see what it could do. It was never done by staff. Instead, staff came back with a
proposal to set up a County -owned facility. It came through very quickly. During
one meeting it was brought up and voted on. Many people became upset and
looked into it. The RFP never went out to determine if the private sector could
handle it. The issue went back to SWAC, and the members unanimously approved
eliminating the proposal and go out for an RFP.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag questioned whether the amount would come before the Council as a
supplemental budget request if it taken out of the budget now and is later
requested as a part of the RFP.
Brenner stated one of the reasons this was put on the fast track was because
there was a threat by the City of Bellingham to close their Lakeway station. The
Lakeway station is not going to close. The city intends to continue operating it the
way it has operated it. The purpose of rushing this along is no longer a problem.
Crawford questioned where the $110,000 for the site came from. Monsen
stated it comes out of the Solid Waste fund balance.
Crawford questioned which piece of the pie chart on page 170 of volume II
includes the solid waste fund. Monsen stated he thought it may be in the Charges
for Services section. The solid waste excise tax is the primary source that
generates about $700,000 to $800,000 per year. Another $250,000 comes from
state grants. The solid waste fund has been growing slowly over the past couple of
years.
Crawford questioned the amount in that fund. Monsen stated the projected
fund balance at the beginning of 2001 is nearly $1.2 million.
Crawford questioned whether the $110,000 would stay in the fund if it wasn't
allocated. Monsen stated it would stay in the fund. If this project is removed from
the budget, there are processes underway to re- address this issue. Subject to the
result, the issue would come back to the County Council in the form of a
supplemental budget request.
Crawford questioned for what the money in that fund has been used.
Brenner stated the money was used for recycling efforts.
Monsen stated that in the last couple of years, the fund has been used for
two purposes. One purpose has been for waste reduction and recycling activity,
including household hazardous waste and yard waste. The other purpose has been
for expenditures on closed landfills.
Desler stated page 63 of volume I has a Solid Waste fund category. The
solid waste surcharge is collected at the disposal facilities are in line 4343. The
total revenue projected is $1,039,000. Another way to look at this is on pages 38
and 39. Fund 140 on both pages is the projected amount based on expenditures
and revenues. The ending fund balance is slightly less than $1 million at the end
of 2001, based on the expenditures and revenues they project.
Monsen stated that, knowing there was some increase in that fund balance,
they would have revenues available to deal with yard waste issues and expanded
work at closed landfills.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Nelson requested a friendly amendment to the motion that the SWAC would
look at the role the County would play with these funds in recycling yard waste and
materials in light of the fact that, by 2003, the County may have impacts due to the
burn bans.
Brenner stated SWAC is already looking at that. It reformed the Organics
Committee to deal with that issue. They've had two meetings. It will be an
ongoing discussion for the next few months.
Motion carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed.
Brenner stated there are two positions in the Solid Waste Division. The
division had a position for a Solid Waste Specialist. The vacant position was
advertised only once, for less than a month. There were very specific
requirements, which required some expertise. There was no response to the
advertisement. The position was re- advertised in- house, and the qualifications
were lowered. The secretary for the Solid Waste Division is now in the Solid Waste
Specialist position. She didn't know what the secretary's qualifications were, but
she would guarantee that they are not the same. She moved to eliminate the Solid
Waste Specialist position and come back through the SWAC and Council Public
Works Committee to determine what the qualifications should be. They must either
fund the position that has expertise in solid waste, or don't fund it at all. Right
now, there are two secretarial positions and the employees are performing
secretarial work. She was concerned about that.
Monsen stated the County had 1.5 FTE's for the Solid Waste Division. There
was a decision two years ago in the budget process that the County needed to be
more aggressive in promoting waste reduction and recycling activities, and
increased the FTE's to two. The desire was to have a full -time qualified solid waste
reduction and recycling coordinator. There was no response to the advertisement
for the position. Therefore, he chose to make an adjustment to the position
because there was an interest in house that would get done the majority of what
they wanted to accomplish. There was a reduction of duties and salary when the
position was re- advertised.
Hoag stated the position went from a level 10 to a level 14. She asked how
that would be a reduction in salary. Monsen stated he was talking about when the
department re- advertised the position. The department reduced the amount that
the Council approved because they could not fill the position as advertised.
Hoag stated the position was initially advertised, there was no applicant, and
the criteria changed. She questioned whether it went back out for public
advertisement. Monsen stated it is a union position. The original advertisement
was in- house. There was no qualified applicant, so it went to public advertisement.
There was still no qualified applicant, so an adjustment was made, it was re-
advertised in- house, and filled. If an internal employee is a qualified applicant,
they can't advertise publicly.
Brenner stated it was only advertised one time.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Nelson questioned the cost required for a Solid Waste Specialist. Monsen
stated that to bring someone in would require an engineer in the range of $60,000
for salary and benefits.
Brenner stated she wanted the position referred to the County Council Public
Works Committee and SWAC.
Nelson stated if no money is allocated next year, they have to come back
with a supplemental budget request. If they allocate the funding now, funding is
available for administration when they are ready.
Brenner moved to eliminate the Solid Waste Specialist position and refer it to
the County Council Public Works Committee and SWAC to develop criteria and
qualifications if and when they re- advertise the position. If the County advertises
for a new position, they should advertise it for several months, not one time. The
amount is around $50,000.
Hoag asked the difference between the original criteria and the final criteria,
and the differences between the secretary's job duties now and when a she was a
secretary. She wanted to know what they are currently getting with the position
they are eliminating.
Brenner stated she wanted to see what the qualifications were of the person
who filled the job.
Nelson stated he couldn't support the motion because it would take out a
position that is doing the job now. The Council could still work on this in SWAC and
the Public Works Committee. If the position needs to be re- advertised, they could
change the position and do it for the next year.
Brenner stated funding a position, that isn't what it appears, is a disservice
to the public. This position is not what it seems.
Dawson stated they don't have that information.
Hoag stated that is why she is asking for that information.
Brenner stated she would hold the motion until November 14. She wanted to
see the qualifications of the person in the Solid Waste Specialist position. Desler
provided the information of the job requirements and qualifications for the
incumbent position. The administration did not recommend that the position be
eliminated.
Brenner questioned what "AAS" stands for. Desler stated it is a two -year
degree.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Brenner stated there isn't even a four -year degree. The qualifications asked
for a four -year degree or equivalent experience, which is making a subjective
allowance.
Dawson questioned the difference in the salaries between the original
position and the position after it was adjusted. Desler stated it went from a range
16 to a range 14.
Brenner stated the person was in a range 10 and was increased to a range
14. Monsen stated the person moved from a secretarial position into the specialist
position. That was the change from the range 10 to the range 14. She is not in the
same position. There is a Solid Waste secretary position that is not new.
Brenner stated the people can be juggled around. The qualifications lack
what the original credentials were. They've had that position filled by people
qualified in the field. She was very disturbed about this because, in the end, it
ends up costing the County quietly in other areas. This is a bottom line issue from
here.
Monsen stated that as they review to that level of detail, they are getting into
the realm of a performance evaluation and the discussion should be in executive
session to get legal advice from counsel.
Brenner stated this was not a performance evaluation. She only wanted to
look at qualifications and the original requirements.
Hoag stated there is a difference between the fields of study. She wanted to
know what the current position addresses, what the person is doing, and what the
Council wanted to have done by the position.
Monsen stated that, depending on how the Council wants to deal with some
of those questions, the position relates directly to the bargaining agreement and
internal matters that need to be dealt with in executive session.
Hoag stated the information she requested is not an executive session item.
She asked for that information before the next meeting.
Hoag stated the Public Works ER &R fund has an additional $677,000, which
is 30.96 percent. That is a tremendous amount of money. She questioned what
the Inventory Purchases and Intrafund Supplies category consists of under the
Public Works ER &R fund. Monsen stated fuel costs have gone up, but that is not
the entire category. Equipment rental functions in a way the supplies are
purchased and put on inventory for use by other benefiting funds, such as road
projects. They will go through cycles when expenditures change dramatically
because of what supplies would be needed the next year for operating activities.
He couldn't say what these supplies might reflect or go toward, but they are
inventory items for use by someone else.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag stated they would have had to somehow come up with the amount of
$677,000. She asked for a breakdown before Tuesday.
Hoag stated there is an increase for the biannual rock crushing contract two
year supply, which is a 26.85 percent increase. She questioned whether the two -
year supply is the same as always. Monsen stated they have, for the last number
of years, contracted for a supply of rock. They go through that exercise every
other year. This item reflects that they will go through that exercise next year, as
they did two years ago. They did not go through this exercise this year. Anything
that ER &R purchases is consumed by someone else. For ER &R, they really have to
look at the dollar amounts, not the percentage change. It is not a change from
year to year. In 1997, they spent $1 million. In 1998, they spent $722,000. In
1999, they spent almost $1.7 million. This year they budgeted less than $1 million.
It depends on the year that the supplies come in. The percentage is misleading
because the actual expenditure over time is what is more important. If they
compare one year with a previous year, they won't get a picture of what equipment
rental is performing. ER &R does all of the activities that include material supplies,
equipment rental, and equipment purchase. A percentage change from year to
year is not indicative of how it is changing over time, only between two years.
Hoag stated the explanation is the biannual rock - crushing contract. She
asked for information before Tuesday on exactly how much of an increase the rock
crushing itself costs. Monsen stated the $260,000 resembles the crushing contract
cost, with all other expenditures in that category being about the same. The
increase is only the additional rock - crushing contract. Everything else is the same
from the previous year because it did not include rock crushing. There was
material on hand for use.
Hoag requested a comparison of what the County paid for rock crushing two
years ago. Monsen stated this went out for bid and is an estimate.
Nelson referencesdthe additional changes recommended by the
administration, as outlined in Executive Kremen's memo dated November 7, 2000.
Desler stated the administration proposes to not use flood fund as a basis for
supporting the Shellfish Protection District effort. He recommended using the
Water Resources fund as the basis for financing that position.
Nelson moved that the funding for the Shellfish Protection District Specialist
position be funded from the Water Resources fund, as recommended by the
Executive in adjustment number one of the memo.
Brenner stated she wanted to see the job description for that position.
Motion carried unanimously.
Desler stated that the Executive recommended an adjustment in item
number two of the memo to remove the cost for one of two laser printers in the
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Public Works budget, to reduce the ASR 2001 -1437 for capital equipment to a total
of $165,899.
Hoag so moved.
Crawford questioned why the road fund varies so much from year to year.
Monsen stated the primary fluctuation relates to the annual construction program
and whether a project can or can't be completed in one year. Other fluctuations
deal with weather conditions and what activities can be completed. Everything else
is fairly static and related to the cost of living.
Crawford stated they estimate a beginning balance of $8.9 million in the
Road fund. The ending balance would be $5 million. He questioned whether that is
typical. Monsen stated part of this is how the County budgets, compared to how
they have to construct the annual construction program. In the program, they
have to show complete projects. The goal for next year is to complete 75 percent
of the efforts, which means that 25 percent of that budget will go unexpended and
continue on to the next years. This ASR is to support all of the activities that are
lumped into one ASR. This ASR is funded by the road fund as a support activity to
the things he described. When they look at the $3 million fund draw down, he
projected that the fund balance at the end of 2001 would be the same as it is
today, it is not going to go down $3 million because they won't complete the
projects. Many of the projects are carrying on through a permitting and design
process now. He couldn't say with confidence that they all would be done this year
or next year.
Hoag questioned whether the County ended up with an increase in the
reserve balance because it couldn't do many of the projects it had planned.
Monsen stated that that was correct.
Crawford questioned the need to spend $165,000 on computers. Monsen
stated they have fewer staff today than a few years ago regarding roads. Instead
of the personnel, he found ways through contracting and tool improvement to
maintain or enhance productivity. He is trying to ensure that the tools the people
are using for design and maintenance are at a level used in the marketplace to
sustain productivity. The cost for computers averages to a little over $1,000 per
employee.
Crawford asked how many employees use computers and whether they are
replacing computers. Monsen stated that at least half to two - thirds of the
employees use the computers.
Crawford asked how much of the existing equipment is being replaced by
spending $165,000. Monsen stated he would have to check his notes. The cost
reflects their annual cost.
Crawford stated that a private enterprise doesn't buy all that equipment at
once. They should have a scheduled replacement program and pay for equipment
as they can afford it. This request seems like a lot of equipment to be purchased at
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
one time. Monsen stated they would have to discuss the replacement schedule with
the Information Services Division. In this year's budget, the amount is $155,000.
This is the annual cost for these kinds of machines and their use for the Public
Works Department.
Hoag questioned how hold the equipment is now. Monsen stated he couldn't
answer that. The replacement schedule was a recommendation from the
Information Services Division.
Desler stated replacement activity generally occurs every four years. That
amount pays for about 35 computers and monitors and a Windows upgrade for 120
computers in the department. It also pays for an upgrade to Microsoft Office, which
is about $45,000. The software upgrades are expensive.
Monsen stated the replacement is about one -third of the inventory.
Crawford stated no other department has this magnitude of an expense.
Desler stated the rest of the County departments contribute to the Technology
Revolve and Rental (TR &R) fund. They are working out replacement schedules for
all computers and related equipment. The Public Works Department is not a part of
the TR &R fund, so it needs to use this ASR mechanism. For 2001, the
administration wants to place the Public Works Department into the TR &R fund for
the County.
Crawford asked if this amount is fairly comparable to what they really do.
Desler stated there was a much smaller adjustment last year to this.
Monsen stated the list represents about one - quarter to one -fifth of the
inventory, not one - third.
Crawford questioned the number of laptops they are currently using. Monsen
stated less than a dozen.
Crawford questioned why they are spending $3,500 per laptop.
George Reid, Information Services, stated they are high -end computers
because they are used for presentations. The County uses the IBM Thinkpad, which
is a high memory model.
Crawford questioned why they couldn't do a Powerpoint presentation on
other lower -end computers. Reid stated one could, depending on the presentation.
that.
Crawford stated he's run Powerpoint on a 386. Reid stated one could do
Nelson stated a 386 doesn't have the graphics capability.
Crawford stated this is one extraordinary expenditure. There isn't any other
department in which they would spend $165,000 on this, and he didn't understand
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
why they would go and do this all at once. Reid stated last year the Planning and
Development Services, which is nowhere near the size of the Public Works
Department, spent over $70,000 in replacement for computers, monitors, and
software. The Public Works Department is the biggest user. The cost includes
operating system upgrades and software upgrades, not just equipment.
Nelson stated they need engineering capabilities.
Reid stated they have to have the memory and the capacity. Some of their
applications are quite complex.
Nelson stated a low -end computer would not be able to handle it.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
Brenner questioned whether some of the equipment is less than four years
old. Reid stated yes.
Crawford asked if there is an ongoing plan so the County doesn't spend
$165,000. Reid stated that once they are on a three- to four -year replacement
schedule, it probably won't be that expensive. The schedule exists in the TR &R
fund, but not for the Public Works Department.
Hoag questioned whether the TR &R fund would still be funded by Road fund
when the department becomes a part of it. Reid stated the department would
make a contribution from the Road fund to the TR &R fund.
Hoag stated that if half of the employees use computers, then the cost is
$2,000 per employee. She questioned whether it calculates to $8,000 per
employee that will be working with an upgrade if one - fourth of the units are being
replaced at a cost of $2,000 per employee that is using a computer. Monsen stated
that, by the time they add in the computers, printers, software upgrades, and other
wiring issues, $8,000 sounds high but $5,000 wouldn't be far off.
Hoag questioned whether they are getting $8,000 worth of productivity by
using these upgrades. Monsen stated that without those tools, they wouldn't be
doing anything.
Hoag stated she was talking about the package and cost per employee that
will be using the upgrades. She questioned whether the County is getting $8,000
of increased productivity per employee that would use the upgrades, compared to
what they are using now. Monsen stated the units they are using now are
becoming obsolete from a software and /or hardware standpoint, and are starting to
experience a breakdown. They are going from a unit that is not functional to a unit
that is functional. In other cases of the upgrades, they will get that value out of the
upgrades. The majority is the replacement of units that are becoming obsolete.
Reid stated they are talking about 23 computer units to replace. Two of
those have the high cap and are used for the AutoCAD, which has an additional
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
expenditure. There are 60 memory upgrades included in this request, in addition to
the 23 new ones. Thirty -two monitors would go from 15 inch to 17 inch because of
the graphics displays used in Engineering. There are also printers and 111
operating system upgrades and Office package upgrades. The department will get
111 total computers. They are replacing 23 computers. The rest of it is peripheral.
Hoag requested a breakdown of what precisely they are replacing before
Tuesday. Monsen stated it is in the Public Works notebook he submitted under tab
10, page 5 of 35.
Nelson restated the motion to decrease the request in ASR 2001 -1437 to
eliminate one laser printer, reflecting the Executive's recommendation in item two
of his memo dated November 7, 2000.
Crawford stated the Councilmembers don't have the expertise to say what
computers the department should have. There is a potential for the Council to
assign a budget figure that works, and the department can prioritize from there.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to add two additional sheriff deputies, paid for by the Road
fund, on top of the eight sheriff deputies being recommended. Ten deputies was
the minimum recommended by the committee. The deputies on the road spend
more than 20 percent of their time on road - related issues. If the County is going to
have eight deputies not paid for by the road fund, she wanted to add two more that
would bring the County up to the recommended amount. The cost is not a huge
impact on the Road fund.
Hoag questioned whether the County could legally use Road fund money to
pay for deputies. Monsen stated the County could do that. The allowance is for
traffic enforcement.
Brenner stated the 20 percent is minimal. The cost for two extra deputies,
benefits, uniforms, small tools and equipment, professional services, ER &R, and
vehicles is $193,138. It would be money well spent.
Nelson stated the Council approved two deputies to be paid for out of the
Road fund in 1993 or 1994. The positions would pay for themselves through traffic
tickets. However, to date they have not been able to do that.
Brenner stated she didn't care if they do or don't. This is something the
citizens have repeatedly asked for. Citizens want deputies in certain areas because
people are speeding and no one is watching the roads.
Nelson questioned why the two deputies approved in 1993 or 1994 can't pay
for their own positions through the tickets generated.
Brenner stated she didn't hear that at the time. She heard it said that the
deputies couldn't pay for their own positions.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Dawson questioned how many deputies could be funded from the Road fund.
Brenner stated it is 20 percent of the new request. None of the eight
deputies are coming out of the road fund. There is a percentage that what they do
is related to road issues.
Hoag proposed friendly amendment to run the issue by legal counsel,
because there is a question about what types of things the deputies can do, and
bring the motion to the November 14 meeting.
Brenner accepted the friendly amendment. She withdrew the motion until
November 14, pending new information. The Sheriff's Office needs to show
whether or not 20 percent of the work deals with traffic enforcement. She
questioned whether that also deals with traffic accidents. Monsen stated the
statute talks about traffic enforcement.
Hoag stated she needed more information before she would vote on it.
Hoag requested the information on the Public Works Department flood
control technician discussed earlier.
Dawson questioned how much the department would need if they contracted
out the sediment management. Monsen stated he had no idea.
Hoag stated they could come back with a supplemental budget request.
Monsen stated the cost of the engineering technician is a total of $83,848
including salary and benefits, vehicle, and rent on the vehicle.
Dawson moved to approve the additional technical support in the amount of
$83,848. The administration can decide if the work is done through a contract or
in- house.
Hoag stated the motion had three parts. One part was that someone on the
team be a geologist. Another part was that this funding included the effort directed
at sediment management. The last part was that the work be done either in -house
or by contract. She questioned the amount of the salary for that position. Monsen
stated he calculated $53,448 for salary and benefits.
Nelson stated two things are going on. One part of the motion is to increase
an FTE, and another part of the motion requests the administration to look at
contracting services.
Dawson stated they are asking for additional technical support. The
administration can decide how it wants to do the sediment management work.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Nelson stated he would specify a dollar amount to be spent on sediment
management. The administration can decide whether it needs to be done by hiring
an FTE or going out for a contracted service.
Hoag stated she was uncomfortable only approving $83,000 for sediment
management. She wanted a body there doing the work. Approving the money
doesn't mean that a body would do the work.
Desler stated the administration is interested in outcomes, and wants to
make sure it complies with the policy and directions given by the Council. The
administration wants results. The administration would advocate getting results. If
the Council wants to set aside money for this, the administration would come back
and make a recommendation on how to approach this in the future, with details.
They are already acquiring, and have to focus on hiring, two additional engineers to
focus on flood matters.
Nelson stated he recommended moving the additional support for sediment
at a dollar amount.
Hoag stated the Council allocated money for pilot stations in the Sheriff's
Office. The money just sat in the budget and didn't get used. The Flood Advisory
Committee has said that this number of personnel is the bare bones it can get by
with. The Council is not putting that body there.
Dawson stated the Council would hear from the committee if it doesn't get
any results.
Hoag stated there needs to be another person in the Flood Division. She
didn't care about leaving up to the administration on how the work is done. When
they talk about an FTE, the personnel is added forever, generally. They don't know
how long the County will need this person. If they just allocate money, it may not
happen.
Dawson restated the motion to approve technical support for sediment
management with cap of $84,000. If it's not working after six months or so, the
Council could specify an additional FTE.
Hoag stated they would like a geologist to be part of the team.
Nelson stated that is up to the department.
Hoag stated that just allocating the money doesn't guarantee that the
position will be filled.
Dawson restated the motion for $84,000 for additional technical support for
sediment management. If it is not working after six months or so, the Council can
come back and make it an FTE. The administration should work with the Flood
Advisory Committee, and report back in six months to provide a status report of
filling the positions.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to approve the Special Projects Manager position as requested
in ASR 2001 -1504 in the amount of $78,784 to be paid from the Road fund. This
position was necessary to get the road projects in place. Because of the special
needs and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the County can't move forward or is
delayed on road projects.
Monsen stated the Executive recommended funding the position of the
Assistant Superintendent of Maintenance & Operations (M &O) as requested in ASR
2001 -1473, with the understanding that one Road fund related vacant FTE within
the department would be eliminated.
Nelson questioned why the administration wanted to cut an FTE. Desler
stated the administration is concerned about growth in the numbers of employees
in the County. There are new priorities in the Public Works Department. It is a
matter of refocusing on the new priorities and applying the time and talents of the
people to the new issues they need to address for the future. It is more expensive
to hire an Assistant Maintenance Superintendent at $78,000. The deal is that one
of the unfilled FTE's in the Road fund would be eliminated, and they would add a
new FTE as an Assistant Maintenance Superintendent.
Nelson questioned whether that position would solve the problem in getting
these projects completed. Monsen stated to address these issues, the County
needs to increase staff to bring focus to those matters or go through some re-
prioritization of what they accomplish. They need to have focus to it, which would
be accomplished from shifting an activity to this task, or increase staff to address it.
Nelson questioned which option the administration chose. Monsen stated the
administration chose to allow focus to be brought to the issue. He didn't know what
that meant, but intended to find out what that means when that program evolves.
Nelson stated that he would withdraw the motion because they don't have
that answer.
Hoag questioned which position would be eliminated if this position were
approved. It sounds like this would begin to address her concern with the Road
Maintenance Program. Safe roads are upgraded, and other roads in poor condition
are not maintained because of the way they fall in terms of traffic volume. The
County is losing its focus on public safety. She appreciated the shift in focus. This
is important. She hoped that will be a part of what the position does. She
questioned whether the Assistant Superintendent of M &O would do that. Monsen
stated that position would touch on that topic, but it would be limited in nature.
They are already making adjustments internally to make sure the traffic engineer
has time to focus on those kinds of matters and developing priorities to address
those basic traffic safety issues. The position they are talking about now has a
relationship that is small.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag questioned what this person would do. Monsen stated they need to do
more prioritization and long -range planning on which roads are addressed and
when, to make sure that roads are maintained when they should be. Second, the
County needs high - caliber individuals that specifically deal with permitting, so that
work can proceed. It is one thing to plan a project, and another thing to get the
permission to do a project. This position would spend a significant amount of time
making sure they get permission to do it when they plan to.
Hoag questioned why they need to spend $78,000 on a person to process
permits. Monsen stated the individual is someone who would supervise consultants
and people and look for contracting alternatives. The job isn't pushing paper. It
needs someone to design and implement a program.
Brenner was concerned about approving funding for an ideal position
compared to the people the County actually gets and their qualifications. It
changes the focus of what they are doing if someone hired has different
qualifications that what they are getting.
Nelson stated that is why they are moving to objective criteria for the
budget, involving specific goals and measurable outcomes. The Council wants it
policies adhered to, and they should make sure that the department has a way to
measure the outcome of the policies.
Brenner stated that filling the position with a body is not the Council's
legislative intent.
Crawford moved to remove $250,000 budgeted to convert from chip - sealing
to paving in the subdivisions. He would rather use chip - sealing instead of asphalt.
He lives on a chip - sealed road and is happy with it.
Hoag stated she also lives on a chip - sealed road and is happy with it, but she
doesn't live in a subdivision. She received calls from people unhappy with the chip -
sealing in a subdivision. Within a subdivision, kids use the roads for biking and
other activities. The County has a problem in terms of safety. She believed the
County used to asphalt subdivisions, and then changed to chip -seal. Monsen stated
that subdivision roads under current road standards are constructed as an asphalt
concrete road. The County maintains the road with a chip -seal rather than an
asphalt concrete, because of costs. They will still require an asphalt concrete as the
minimum standard when a subdivision goes in. Some time within 20 years, it
would be converted to a chip -seal.
Brenner stated that Tom Brown was a member of the Council for four years.
He was the Council's expert on roads because he worked for the state Department
of Transportation for many years. Mr. Brown said that the asphalt roads last just
as long, are much better on cars, and the noise level is reduced. Chip -seal, if
adding the unseen costs to vehicles and the noise, it is not less expensive. The
County should move away from chip -seal to asphalt only around the entire county.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Crawford stated he lives happily in a subdivision that has chip - sealed roads.
He has two small children who haven't gotten too hurt by it. They are talking about
changing the way they are doing things. They are not talking about converting
roads to chip - sealing. Chip - sealing is adequate for what the County is doing.
Hoag stated that in many subdivisions, they are converting asphalt roads to
chip -seal.
Monsen stated that when the road needs maintenance, the maintenance
work they do today is a chip -seal surfacing. The initial asphalt road could last up to
20 years. After that, there is a seven -year cycle to maintain chip -seal.
Dawson questioned whether chip -seal would be safer on hillsides for snow
and ice. Monsen stated that in those areas of the County where there is a frost
problem they have better performance with the chip -seal than with the asphalt
concrete. That is not countywide.
Brenner stated they could chip -seal the dangerous area. Mr. Brown stated
that asphalt is just as safe as chip -seal for most of the roads because material is
not flying up at a vehicle.
McShane questioned whether there was a change in policy, what drove that
change, and why. Monsen stated that in the last few years, and more so this year,
the County received calls from residents about why the County is chip - sealing the
roads. He brought this forward because it is a policy matter directly relating to
level of service. This is an increase in the level of service that has an associated
cost. The policy matter is there for Council consideration. His department can do
the work either way.
Hoag stated she found that the greatest safety factor on asphalt and chip -
seal in icy conditions is the slope of the road. If the road is not adequately sloped,
the water will puddle, freeze, and create solid ice. That happens whether there is
chip -seal or asphalt. Within subdivisions, it goes to the issue of public safety.
Brenner stated she would expand the use of asphalt beyond subdivisions,
and she would schedule that beyond subdivisions. Asphalt roads last longer than
chip -seal.
Motion failed 2 -4 with Crawford and McShane in favor.
Brenner asked why they are putting money into the passport program
through the Health and Human Service Department. She believed they were going
to privatize that service, and questioned whether the County is required by law to
do that program. Desler stated it is a small program. He didn't know if the County
was required to do the program.
Nelson suggested taking a break for 10 minutes and then to discuss the
unrepresented solution in executive session for 15 minutes. The executive session
would begin at 1:50 p.m. They would resume the public meeting at 2:00 p.m.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
(Clerk's Note: The Council returned at 2:35 p.m. Councilmember McShane
did not return)
Hoag asked about the 99.54 percent increase in the Health Department
Administration's salaries and wages.
Regina Delahunt, Environmental Health Services Manager, stated three
positions were transferred in to the Health Department Administration and include
the Health Educator, the Data Specialist, and the Assessment Coordinator. There
was also an reclassification of the Office Administrator to Assistant Director. The
positions were transferred from different programs into administration.
Dawson stated the County and City of Bellingham each originally
appropriated $15,000 for the Domestic Violence Commission. The next year, it was
$30,000, and this year it is $7,000. She wanted to approve the funding with the
contingency that the County gets together with the City of Bellingham next year to
look at the total program to see if it might be more effective to keep a pool of
money or provide a stipend. The purpose was to improve communication.
Quarterly meetings are enough communication between all the parties. Delegate
responsibilities to groups and give them a stipend. Add a condition that the
commission is subject to review next year.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side 8.)
Nelson stated they are looking for specific objectives. Councilmember
Dawson is saying that, in addition, the County should look at how it funds the
various programs the commission provides funding to. That would be something
the City and County would work on together.
Crawford referenced volume II, page 79, line item 4050. He questioned the
differences through the years. Desler stated that in 2001, they converted from
non - departmental to the Health Department budget. The $30,000 reduction from
2000 to 2001 went to the Health Department for the Domestic Violence
Commission. The remaining $15,000 was for the WomenCare shelter.
Brenner referenced line item 4290 Air Pollution Control. She asked if that is
the Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA). Desler stated it is.
Brenner asked if the County was allowed by state law to support a local
position instead of paying NWAPA. The County could do that for a few thousand
more dollars and gain a position that gets to the problem when it happens instead
of days later. Desler stated he would need to research the state law. Fifteen years
ago San Juan County withdrew from NWAPA.
Brenner stated people are frustrated because of the poor response.
Hoag stated NWAPA does a lot more than inspect complaints. If the County
could keep $25,000 for a local inspector, that would be one thing.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Brenner asked what NWAPA does that someone local couldn't do.
Hoag stated NWAPA deals with molds and tests schools and homes. They
also deal with large industry and go out to regularly inventory activities and renew
permits.
Brenner stated they are not responsive enough. She questioned whether
someone could do those things just for Whatcom County.
Hoag stated the County could not have someone locally do all the things that
NWAPA does for $25,000.
Brenner stated the County doesn't get much with NWAPA right now.
Hoag stated that the demographics show that Whatcom County puts out the
most air pollution in the NWAPA group. The focus of most of the effort that NWAPA
puts out is in Whatcom County. She agreed that there are things that NWAPA
could respond more quickly on and be more effective on. She would like to see
more local input. In terms of the budget, they are talking about $25,000. If the
County wants to have someone fulfill those tasks locally, it would cost much more
than $25,000. There is state funding that goes to NWAPA. Some of it could be
allocated to the County.
Brenner moved to refer to the Natural Resource Committee or other
committee a discussion of the possibility of starting a Whatcom County air pollution
authority, the cost, and funding that would be available to do that.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford asked about pest control and the starling program.
Hoag stated it is the Pest Control Board. They are looking at quarantines. If
the County gets quarantined, there is a question of whether or not it would still be
needed.
Crawford questioned whether it was true that the administration never
proposes the $10,000 for the starling program, and the Council always adds it.
Desler stated it is true. He didn't know the reason it wasn't included.
Brenner moved to reinstate the starling program funding for $10,000.
Hoag stated she supported the program. It has been very effective. They
are trapping many birds. Starlings also spread disease. The farmers pay more into
the program than the County does.
Crawford stated the total cost of the program is $35,000 per year.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Hoag stated she wanted to expand the length of the program. At the rate it
is funded now, it doesn't continue long enough in the year.
Brenner asked for a report on the program before next year's budget, by
September, to let the Council know what it would do with expanded funding.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner referenced the court commissioners' salaries. The issue of an
increase has been raised very year. Every year, it has been said that if a court
commissioner wanted to raise his or her position, he or she can run for office. She
was not supportive of the increase from 80 percent to 85 percent. She wanted to
see how much they make right now. The judges make a good salary.
Desler stated the lowest rate across the state paid for a Superior Court
Commissioner is 85 percent.
Brenner stated the commissioners are making around $90,000 per year now.
She requested information on the turnover rate. Desler stated he didn't have that
information.
Hoag asked for that information by Tuesday.
Dawson asked that any additional motions be put in writing for the Council
meeting.
Nelson stated the last item is regarding Medic One and dispatch. Desler
stated the administration is working with the City of Bellingham on Medic One.
They are at the budget amount that the County proposes, $1,144,000. He was
going to a meeting to discuss some requirements and the next steps in developing
a plan for emergency management service (EMS). The Mayor and Chief of Police
have been cooperative. They met with fire commissioners across the county. They
selected Chief Campbell from Fire District 5 to be their representative during
discussions. They would put together a comprehensive committee.
Brenner stated the Council should do what has been recommended for this
year and move forward with a plan.
Nelson thanked the administrative staff members for their hard work and for
being able to provide answers in a timely manner to the questions the Council
asked. They've done a good job putting together the budget. He asked for
information on the funding impacts of the motions they've made.
Desler stated the majority of the fiscal impacts are to the Road fund and
other Public Works Department funds. There is a $10,000 addition in the starling
program. The overtime for the Sheriff's Office was referred to the Law and Justice
Council. There were also two items in the Public Defender's Department and one
item in the Hearing Examiner's budget.
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on December 12 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Special County Council Meeting - BUDGET, 11/7/2000, Page 44